Fixes issue with '.py' extension in script() functions

[ghost]

Closes #103
Fixes script() functions for:

• boxfill.py
• meshfill.py
• isofill.py
• textcombined.py
• texttable.py
• vector.py

Every function had a reference to color which was expected to be float(old color format), except vector, whose .line property had changed to .linetype, which was causing an error.

[aashish24]

thanks @embrown do we have a test for this?

[aashish24]

Looks reasonable to me 👍

[ghost]

@aashish24 Oh that's right! I forgot to write a test. I'll put one up there.

[aashish24]

LGTM ..

[aashish24]

@embrown do you want to merge this?

[ghost]

@aashish24 I haven't run the tests on vcs with this in place, so I was waiting for someone more official than myself to do so and make sure I didn't break anything.

[williams13]

Sam and/or Charles, Can you take a look at this for Ed? Thanks, Dean From: Edward Brown <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: UV-CDAT/vcs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:27 AM To: UV-CDAT/vcs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [UV-CDAT/vcs] Fixes issue with '.py' extension in script() functions (#104) @aashish24<https://github.com/aashish24> I haven't run the tests on vcs with this in place, so I was waiting for someone more official than myself to do so and make sure I didn't break anything. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#104 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACrXKaPxmTJb8gdOoBu5gH_EbsitaTeKks5rH_zHgaJpZM4LAdhD>.

[ghost]

Thank you @williams13. I would have run the tests myself, but I'm not quite sure what the testing process with VCS is now, since the repo split.

[aashish24]

@embrown @chaosphere2112 or @danlipsa can run the tests (and answer any questions you may have). you can always ping me or @doutriaux1 as well.

[chaosphere2112]

This all looks fine; the test needs some work though.

[chaosphere2112]

Ran into some issues

[chaosphere2112]

Need to fix ext_1 and ext_2

[ghost]

@doutriaux1 @chaosphere2112, I'm finding a lot of bugs in the various script() functions.
I'm in the process of going through and fixing them.
I'll ping you when everything's passing and I submit the PR.

[doutriaux1]

@embrown as far the .scr goes we should deprecate the saving of them if not done already. We should focus on .json ones as far as script goes, and simply reading in OLD scr (as in any recent function would not be in)

[ghost]

@doutriaux1 Yeah, the SCR deprecation warnings have been in.
I'm going through and addressing errors with how the python files are written out.
It's obviously something not used much, since there don't seem to be any outstanding issues on the fact that the python scripts created don't work. But @chaosphere2112 indicated it is something he needs working, so I'm gonna fix it.

[ghost]

@doutriaux1, with a fair bit of help from @chaosphere2112 I was able to get the script() functions working for python files. They produce valid python scripts, and those scripts run correctly with vcs.scriptrun(). I'll push my changes to the test that validates the object created from scriptrun() are identical to those on which script() was called.

[ghost]

@doutriaux1 @chaosphere2112 , This is done and should be merge-able. Once it's merged, All of the tests I'm adding to the vcs test suite today should work.

[doutriaux1]

@embrown sounds good. I will let @chaosphere2112 some time to review your changes since he requested them. How do you run the documentation test suite again? I would like to add it to travis.yaml eventually.

[ghost]

@doutriaux1 we're working on building the documentation tests into the vcs test suite, so it should just be run every time the vcs tests are run.

[doutriaux1]

@embrown if you're already doing it then all the merrier for me!

[ghost]

@doutriaux1 I'm working on it. I've got a PR submitted for the initial test (just tests docstrings from vcs.queries because those all pass without issue), and I'll be adding more tests onto that before I leave today. When I push my final changes to CDAT/cdat#2151, I will add a comment listing which branches need to be merged before all the new tests should (theoretically) pass.
It will probably still need a little work after I leave to get it smoothly integrated into the suite.

[aashish24]

@embrown any update on this branch? Are we just waiting on the review?

[ghost]

@aashish24 not sure. My internship ended in January, so I think the question would be better directed to @doutriaux1.

[aashish24]

@aashish24 not sure. My internship ended in January, so I think the question would be better directed to @doutriaux1.

thanks @embrown @doutriaux1 could you please review this branch as I am less familiar with this code but I can attempt to review if no one else does.